Posted
by
Soulskill
on Thursday February 10, 2011 @07:09AM
from the unpredictable-like-the-tides dept.

Fox News took another shot at the video game violence debate earlier this week when they asked whether Bulletstorm, an upcoming M-rated shooter from Epic Games, is the worst game in the world. The article links violent games with an increase in rapes, and suggests there should be greater penalties for selling to minors. Gaming website Rock, Paper, Shotgun breaks down the problems with the article's sensationalist claims and highlights the disingenuous cherry-picking of quotes.
"Scott Steinberg, CEO of TechSavvy Global, and all-round industry guru, got in touch with me to show me the answers he submitted to Fox when they approached him for comment. The full answers are reproduced below, because what results is a fantastic interview on the subject of adult game content and regulation. Fox chose to use none of Steinberg’s comments in their final piece, opting instead for the more sensational claims of those with no expertise in the subject (neither of whom have found time to reply to our emails). But seeing these answers also provides further insight into how the mainstream media coverage of gaming stories works. Far from being a reporter ignorant of the subject and twisted by naive contributors, Fox correspondent John Brandon was equipped with a wealth of factual information and informed opinion before composing his frantic article."

players are rewarded for shooting enemies in the private parts (such as the buttocks). There’s an excess of profanity, of course, including frequent use of F-words. And Bulletstorm is particularly gruesome, with body parts that explode all over the screen.

Gore-fest! Awesome! Never heard of this game before but now I'm gonna definitely get it!!

I know you felt required to be "balanced" but that really is a false equivalency. Did you see the footage of the Fox News producer organizing the tea party rally for best visual effect? Do you know how many potential GOP presidential candidates Fox News directly funds by giving them jobs as "news" "analysts"? Do you remember the multiple times Fox had a story about a tea party rally and showed a different rally in order to make the attendance bigger? Fox News gave millions of dollars directly to the GOP and when an MSNBC host was found to have given a few thousand to a Democrat, he was suspended (and later sacked).

I could go on and on (and I usually do) but until you can show MSNBC engaged in that kind of activity, it's not fair to put them in the same category.

BBC is no better than Fox to be honest - they were one of the first to go after Assange when Mannings intel was leaked. Al Jazeera is where it's at for world news, and for my local news here in Australia, ABC or SBS.

People simply pointed out that the right uses a lot of violent rhetoric, and, look, an example of it. Where others might simply used a checkbox or something, Palin decided to use a gun crosshair, because she's all 'gunny', don't cha know.

Although I personally find her 'reload' comment to be a lot more crazy.

I know you won't believe it, but the right uses much much more of 'shooting things' rhetoric than the left.

And, yes, I'm sure there's some examples of the left using violent-originating figures of speech, but the right isn't using metaphors. 'Targets' are metaphors. 'Bullseyes' are metaphors. 'War' is a metaphor. Even saying 'in our crosshairs' might be.

If some on the left have cherry picked those terms out and complained about them, they're wrong, just like they were wrong to complain about the 'Repeal the job killing health care reform' bill's name. (Well, they should have just complained it was dishonest.)

But actually drawing crosshairs on a map...that's not a metaphor. I've certainly never seen crosshairs used to identify locations or people outside the context of shooting at that location. A bullseyes, an X, okay, I can accept those and not read 'shooting' into them, despite the origin, but a crosshairs, no.

Talking about 'ballot, soap, jury, ammo', is not a metaphor. Talking about 'using second amendment rights' is not a metaphor.

The FBI's stats actually show rape is down yet people don't take the time to verify things anymore

When I was a kid, my mother went to a PTA meeting where the school director (a retired army colonel, BTW) presented police statistics showing a decrease in rape incidents. He interpreted this as an indicator of increased use of marijuana because, according to him, marijuana causes sexual impotence.

Conclusion: if video games cause rape that's good, because it will decrease drug use, same as piracy decreases global warming.

When I was a kid, my mother went to a PTA meeting where the school director (a retired army colonel, BTW) presented police statistics showing a decrease in rape incidents. He interpreted this as an indicator of increased use of marijuana because, according to him, marijuana causes sexual impotence.

Conclusion: if video games cause rape that's good, because it will decrease drug use, same as piracy decreases global warming.

So the question is; do you want your kids to smoke a joint every once in a while or do you want them to rape people every once in a while?Basically the school director was PROMOTING drugs use.

If you mean the morality of it, I don't think you'll find many "liberal" perspectives that it's not so bad. In fact, just about the only ones who argue that there's any situation where the woman can't say no, are a subclass of the bible-thumping nutters, for whom God made the woman subordinate to their dick.

If you mean incidence or prevalence statistics, then opinions and political biases don't matter, only the numbers do. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey,

âoeThe increase in rapes can be attributed in large part to the playing out of [sexual] scenes in video games,â she said.

Emphasis mine. See? They never said rape has actually gone up,

STOP RIGHT THERE. "The increase in rapes" is what makes their statement actually say that rape has gone up. Simple English, yo. They are discussing a supposed increase in rape, therefore they have directly implied (this is a case of implication, NOT inference) that rapes have increased.

There's something even more troubling about the quotes you just provided.

Expert says: “The increase in rapes can be attributed in large part to the playing out of [sexual] scenes in video games.”Fox News concludes: "Carol Lieberman...[says] that sexual situations and acts in video games...have led to real-world sexual violence."

Worse yet, when the average uninformed reader reads "have led" first, it won't matter that the expert only says there's a potential link, not an absolute one. Hell, y

I don't think there's much of a comparison here. We have on one hand the claim sexual innuendo in games (and only in games) leads directly to rape. The counter-factual claim that rapes are on the increase, and concrete evidence that the reporter who wrote the piece knew full well that he what he was writing an utter fabrication.

On the other hand, I've been expecting an Democrat to be murdered for political reasons since the 2008 election campaign. It was obvious that it was going to happen when you have

Video games are a waste of time as far as NewsCorp is concerned. Every minute you spend actively engaged in a game is a minute you DON'T spend watching their (paid-for) movies, or (ad-filled) television prgrams, or (propaganda AND ad-filled) "news". If it's not good for Rupert Murdoch's bottom line, expect him to whip up FUD against it wherever possible!

With the slander and bullshit they put out on an hourly basis, are any/.ers really surprised at this?
That's why it is the duty of those that are informed to educate those that are gullible and fall for crap like this.

We used to watch this every day after school back in the 60's. So did we run around gouging eyes, ripping out hair or the old favorite, whacking with a plank on the head? No. I remember my mom teaching us, "This just a comedy film, don't really do this to each other, or someone is going to get hurt."

I think violent crime is a sign of more deeper social problems, that are more difficult to address. It's just easier to blame it on video games as a scapegoat.

We used to watch this every day after school back in the 60's. So did we run around gouging eyes, ripping out hair or the old favorite, whacking with a plank on the head? No. I remember my mom teaching us, "This just a comedy film, don't really do this to each other, or someone is going to get hurt."

I think violent crime is a sign of more deeper social problems, that are more difficult to address. It's just easier to blame it on video games as a scapegoat.

I think the whole Video Games = Violence is complete nonsnse.

But to play devil's advocate, the analogy of watching violent TV shows as a kid isn't entirely valid in my opinion.

In a game, YOU'RE doing things. Some games gets your aggression levels up either by plot or by an aggravating level. I recall a NASCAR race where they stuck cameras in the face of a popular driver IMMEDIATELY after a tense race; he'd barely gotten out of the car. In his aggression he dropped a curse word and people went ape.

This is perhaps just another example of otherwise decent-minded little cogs caught in a malevolent machine built and serviced by engineers of evil who care nothing for the Common Good or ethics beyond how those can be exploited to benefit them. Perhaps John Brandon is really a nice thoughtful guy who really wouldn't have chosen such a slant to the article; just as likely or moreso is that he was being an obedient cog and protecting his career by writing the article with the bias his bosses wanted him to in

At least the Weekly World News never took itself seriously and never expected anyone to believe that Bat Boy was real.

After this amount of time it shouldn't surprise anyone that Fox News can't be arsed to come out with anything resembling news or information. Facts and accuracy be damned. Death panels? Sure. Obama is going to sneak into your house in the dead of night and smother your grandmother *personally.* Similarly, playing this game will turn your kids into serial killers. Never mind the research. What counts is eyeballs and page hits.

If Fox News said that the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning, I would have to check the astronomical tables to confirm.

Fox News is a fraud.

Anyone who still watches Fox is confirmed for stupid. I don't care if your IQ is 200. You still watch Fox? You take anything they say seriously? Then I have nothing to discuss with you. Ever.

Fox News wants you to believe in them. Fox News wants you to believe in Bat Boy.

just the concept of govt beuracracy determining when enough health care is enough instead of doctors or patients deciding.

Which was a LIE, you idiot, just like the poster said. No such system was ever even proposed to exist in any form whatsoever.

The actual thing they were asserting was that was the government paying for 'end of life' consoling, which is an optional thing where you decide, basically, how to do die in comfort where you want and writing up DNR orders and stuff.

Just watch this video of some talking heads debating sexuality in Mass Effect, not knowing what their talking about, and getting their asses handed to them.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKzF173GqTU [youtube.com]

While this is a good article and it was wrong of Fox News to sensationalize it, it still misses the point. Even the industry calls these types of games "Adult Games." Why are minors being allowed to purchase them? We have R and NC-17 movies that as a society we have agreed that minors should not be allowed to see. Why is it different with interactive media.

I'm not saying adults shouldn't be able to purchase games like this. Heck, even parents can purchase them and give them to their kids. But we have

I've got a study for you. Look around you at the 20-35 year olds in the US, Britain, Europe etc are they all emotionally out of control psychos with a fetish for violence? Has society gotten more dangerous, or in general is violent crime falling?

Those 20-35 year olds grew up with comparitively easy access to violent films, porn, all computer games. I'd seen half the Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday 13th series before I was supposed to be in the cinema seeing Saving Private Ryan. I had mastered running

You apparently don't understand that a) we do have literally exactly the same restrictions on video games as movies (a voluntary rating program, which b) has nothing to do with legality at all..you can legally take your 2 year old to an NC-17 movie. The law has no problem with it, assuming you aren't violating some other law, but that has nothing to do with the rating per se.

Like I said, do some research before commenting. The movie rating system and the video game rating system are essentially operated in

Maybe if Fox news cares about the effects of violence, they should worry less about symbolic violence and more about the fact that they are consistent cheerleaders for the wars and military culture that results in things like limbs being blown off and people being burned to death in the real world.

The post also claims Fox is mainstream media. I don't believe that to be true at all. They may have a following, but mostly, they're redneck, science-denyin', anti-queer, don't-tax-me, Nazi-claimin' bags of big wind.

Fortunately, there isn't any rape in this game. Even Fox News wouldn't claim that. They just claim that seeing "Gang Bang" come up on the screen as an achivement when you kill a gang of people will cause your teenage sons to go out and rape people. You can draw your own conclusions about that.

One of the countries with the lowest rates of rape (Japan) actually has rape simulation games.

Wonder how Fox would spin that?

Do Japan woman tend to report rape as often as woman from other countries? Is what is considered rape in other countries the same as what is considered rape in Japan? Based on what I have read on Slashdot about Assage, countries vary greatly on what is considered rape.

Unfortunately these questions can only be answered by Japanese. The statistics come from the UN and do state that it often shows willingness to report the crime. I would state one thing however, the difference between the #1 spot (South Africa) and and #54 (Japan) is quite substantial. The difference isn't quite as much between #9 (US) and #54, but still a marked difference. NB: This data is from the 1998-2000 survey, the 2008 data can be found here [unodc.org], but it's not as easily readable and is not ranked.

I gotta give you thumbs up, for thinking, but thumbs down for missing a couple important details. Julian Assange is not charged with rape, but rather some kind of sexual "misconduct". Only the American media has managed to exaggerate Julian's case into some kind of rape case.

I think you lie, snowgirl. Every single unicorn I've ever seen has been pure snow white, sometimes with a blue tint - again, like snow. Unicorns are as pure as the driven snow, after all. No red, no purple, no lilac, no pastels, nothing like that. If you're not lying, then you do some bad drugs.

Bullshit. That is simply your own hallucination and interpretation which, as I stated above, supports what you choose to believe. When I do see a few minutes of the "news", whatever the station/channel/outlet, I am always amazed that people like yourself choose to *not* see the blatant attempt at brainwashing that these so-called "news shows" exhibit.

No, FoxNews is the worst. Does this mean no others are not guilty? Does this make the statement that Fox is the worst an hallucination?

FWIW - I stopped watching all of them 7+ years ago

I'd suggest that you can't have it both ways: not watching them and having an opinion on the current state of programming.

Also, does Glenn Beck kidnap and eat children? I don't know, I'm just asking questions. I know they'll try to silence me on this with moderation. That's OK. I'm posting this for you, not for me. I don't care what they do to me. This is not about me: this

Rupert Murdoch is one of the sleaziest bastards on earth, and he's an opinionated sumbitch as well. ALL of his media and publications reflect those facts. Fox is no more conservative than I am a rocket scientist. Fox is a tool, designed for the purpose of shaping public opinion. I don't quite "hate" Fox - but I do despise it. What I truly hate is the fact that so many sniveling morons sit down to watch that crap, and take it all for gospel truth.
Any man who takes the word of ANY media outlet as "THE

Rupert Murdoch is one of the sleaziest bastards on earth, and he's an opinionated sumbitch as well.

I'm not sure if that means Murdoch is himself opinionated. He uses public his influence on public opinion to further his goals, not necessarily because he believes that swaying opinion itself is good. A Linux zealot or a religious missionary wants to convert others to his way of thinking because his belief is that that conversion itself is for the greater good. (I'm sure someone can find a counter-example, but I believe my generalization is sufficiently true here.) But for Murdoch, it's a means to a differe

"It is about collecting a very large range of facts and opinions, selecting between them and constructing those chosen into a narrative for a particular purpose.Because there is selection and construction involved, different individuals will necessarily disagree on the result."

Wow, when you put it like that cutting out everything you don't agree with and lying though your teeth to create a misleading story sounds almost reasonable.

While that's certainly "doing journalism" it doesn't mean it's good journalism or immune from criticism. If I bake a cake out of shit, sure, I'm cooking something, but it's still a cake made out of shit.

As you say, the research is ambiguous. That's not what the article says. The article says that, according to the research, video games make you rape people.

As you say, the research is ambiguous. That's not what the article says. The article says that, according to the research, video games make you rape people.

Yes, it's much more like he had all the ingredients for a really fantastic cake already measured and laid out on the table, and then he turned around and took a gigantic runny shit in the pan and baked that instead.

Or at least... the... "sensationalist" or "disingenuous" or "frantic"... "and all-round"... "fantastic",... and... Using pejorative language to remove someone's credibility without actually engaging with them in debate.

IMHO, I agree with what you said RE: what passes as "journalism" today.

"Because there is selection and construction involved, different individuals will necessarily disagree on the result. Soulskill doesn't understand this basic fact. Instead, he thinks that because Fox selected some quotes and disregarded others, selected some opinions and disregarded others, they are necessarily wrong."

I agree with you that this approach does not necessarily make the article wrong, if you would take the time to RTFA, you would see that it is, in fact, totally wrong. This little gem for instance:

Carol Lieberman, a psychologist and book author, told FoxNews.com that sexual situations and acts in video games -- highlighted so well in Bulletstorm -- have led to real-world sexual violence.

“The increase in rapes can be attributed in large part to the playing out of [sexual] scenes in video games,

To be fair, Beck might not have raped and killed a girl in 1990. But the fact remains that many Americans are asking the question: "Did he rape and kill a girl in 1990?"

And why won't he deny it?

I am not accusing him of anything, I am just asking questions, but isn't it interesting: Why are we the only ones asking these questions? what the rest of the media trying to hide? The big journalistic rape and murder gang-bang of 1990? - I don't know, how would I, I am not a rape-murdering TV-personality.

because they were made in a lab. Don't get me wrong, back here in Britain we've got our own fair share of idiots, but what happened with Glen Beck and Sarah Palin et all is that there was an accident involving a military scientific experiment in asshole warfare where a couple of hybrid super-assholes escaped and then due to administrative error, they got put on TV. Why they haven't told us about the countermeasures, I simply do not know.

This is from the first page of the Conservative Playbook: Invent a "clever" twist of a name to demean one's opponent, giggle while patting one's self on the back and never, never, actually debate any merits of an argument.

Because THAT is exactly the reason. If kids are "out of control", it's not TV, not books, not the radio, not the "detective stories", not the "murder mystery" stories or other trashy literature, it's not Dungeons and Dragons and it's not computer games. It's effing bad parenting!

If you put children into this world, it is YOUR duty to educate them, to give them values and to teach them behaviour. Not the school's and not the government's. It's yours and ONLY yours. Parents got so c

That's why it has a big M on the front of the box, telling parents not to buy it for their children and shops not to sell it.Whatever happens when irresponsible people do irresponsible things, while being warned not to, is their own fault.